The Psychiatrist (2006) 30: 146-148. doi: 10.1192/pb.30.4.146
© 2006 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Psychiatric Bulletin (2006) 30: 146-148
© 2006 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Service innovations: a dedicated drug treatment service for dementia
Bart Sheehan, Senior Lecturer in Old Age Psychiatry
Division of Health in the Community, Medical School Building, University
of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, e-mail:
B.Sheehan{at}warwick.ac.uk
Karim Saad, Consultant Old Age Psychiatrist
Coventry Teaching PCT, Caludon Centre, Coventry
Declaration of interest
B.S. has received support to attend a conference from Janssen-Cilag and
Eisai. K.S. has received sponsorship from Shire, Janssen-Cilag, Eisai, Pfizer,
Lundbeck and Novartis.

Abstract
AIMS AND METHOD
To describe a targeted domiciliary drug treatment service for dementia and
to establish clinical outcomes for its patients. All new referrals in a
6-month period were included. Data on clinical and demographic background,
service performance and cognitive, functional and behavioural outcomes were
recorded.
RESULTS
Of 96 patients initiated on antidementia drugs, most had dementia of mild
to moderate severity, and had heterogenous diagnoses. Significant improvements
in cognition, behaviour and function were found.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
A dedicated domiciliary drug treatment service for dementia achieved high
levels of clinical activity and outcomes at least as good as clinical trials.
This service model may be an attractive choice.

Introduction
Drug treatment for dementia has been increasingly available
in the UK since
1997. Trials have repeatedly reported the effectiveness
of cholinesterase
inhibitors for Alzheimers disease
(
Rogers et al, 1998;
Farlow et al, 2000;
Wilcock et al, 2000)
and further work has reported effects of these agents in other
dementias
(
McKeith et al, 2000;
Erkinjutti et al,
2002) and
of memantine, a glutamate antagonist
(
Reisberg et al,
2003).
National service developments, including the National
Service
Framework for Older People
(
Department of Health, 2001)
and
National Institute for Clinical Excellence
(
NICE, 2001) guidance
on the
prescription of cholinesterase inhibitors have driven
forward the widespread
use of antidementia drugs in the National
Health Service. Many service
configurations may be used to
deliver these medications, including traditional
out-patient
clinics, specialised comprehensive memory clinics and general
practitioner prescription. Factors common to services prescribing
these
medications are likely to include specialist control
of assessment, initiation
of treatment and review of response,
and local arrangements between primary
and secondary care over
ongoing prescribing. A specialised community-based
service
in Coventry is dedicated to the management of patients on antidementia
drugs. Key features of the service are staff providing a domiciliary
service
dedicated exclusively to the delivery of drug treatments
for dementia.
The aims of this paper are: (a) to describe this service; (b) to establish
activity/case mix; (c) to assess clinical outcomes for patients of this
service.

Method
The Cognitive Assessment and Treatment Service (CATS) was established
in
Coventry in March 2002. Funding was negotiated to support
three dedicated
senior (G grade) community psychiatric nurses
and a half-time secretary. All
patients identified as having
dementia suitable for treatment with
antidementia drugs are
referred by consultants to this team. An assessment and
treatment
protocol is followed as shown in
Fig. 1. Almost all assessments
are carried out in patients homes. The team nurses deliver
all drugs to
the patients/their carers and monitor adherence
and side-effects. After
reassessments, consultants decide on
further prescribing during supervision
sessions with nursing
staff.
We identified all new referrals to the team between 1 October
2002 and 31
March 2003. For each referral, the following details
were recorded via a pro
forma by team nurses.
Demographic/clinical data
We recorded age, gender, living and care arrangements and the diagnosis
given in the consultant referral letter.
Service data
We recorded time from referral to assessment and from initiation of
treatment to first reassessment. We also recorded the drug used and the
outcome of the assessment (continuation/or stopping drug).
Outcome data
Cognition was measured using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE;
Folstein et al, 1975)
or Addenbrookes Cognitive Examination (ACE;
Mathuranath et al,
2000). Function was measured with the Bristol-Activity of Daily
Living scale (B-ADL; Bucks et al,
1996). Behaviour was recorded using Behave-AD
(Reisberg et al,
1987).
Summative and descriptive statistics were used to describe the patient
group. To analyse change in assessment scores over time, paired t-tests (for
normally distributed scores) or Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks tests (for
non-normally distributed scores) were used.

Results
A total of 181 new referrals were received by the team in the
period
audited. Full information was available for 166 (91.7%)
of these referrals. Of
these, 40 were excluded, 15 because
they were for prescription only
(assessments being done at
the memory clinic) and 25 as they could not be
assessed after
referral (e.g. died, became too ill or refused assessment).
This left a sample of 126 patients who were referred and followed
the CATS
assessment protocol. Of these, 24 were continuing
treatment after clinic
initiation and 6 were assessed but not
initiated on treatment. A total of 96
patients were thus initiated
on treatment by the CATS team.
Of the 96, 55 (57.3%) were given a diagnosis of Alzheimers disease,
18 (18.8%) vascular dementia, 3 (3.3%) mixed vascular/Alzheimer dementia, 13
(13.5%) were recorded as dementia unspecified, and 7 had other diagnoses
recorded, including dementia with Lewy bodies, dementia in multiple sclerosis
and mild cognitive impairment. Mean age was 80.1 years (range 59-98) and 64
(66.7%) were female. Thirty-five (36.5%) lived alone. Mean baseline MMSE score
was 20.0 (range 0-28). Seventy-five (78.1%) were initiated on donepezil, 9
(9.4%) on galantamine, 5 (5.2%) on rivastigmine and 7 (7.3%) on memantine.
Mean time from referral to baseline assessment was 7.3 weeks (range 0-29). Of
those initiated, 19 (19.8%) withdrew before the 3-month assessment could be
completed. Eleven withdrew owing to side-effects, 4 owing to physical illness
developing, 3 were nonadherent with medication and 1 died before reassessment.
First reassessments were completed (n=77) a mean of 3.7 months after
initiation of the drug. Of the 77 patients completing the course of treatment,
69 (89.6%) were judged responders and continued on treatment.
Table 1 shows the outcomes
according to assessment scores for those completing.
There was a statistically highly significant improvement in scores
measuring cognition, behaviour and function.

Discussion
Of the many service models that might deliver antidementia drug
treatments,
most are likely to be clinic-based. To our knowledge,
this is the first
description of a service that employs experienced
nursing staff solely to
ensure the effective drug treatment
of dementia and which delivers the
intervention in patients
homes. The benefits of a home-based service
are considerable;
the most obvious is the combination of enhanced convenience
for patients and reduced non-attendance rates
(
Anderson & Aquilina,
2002).
The tasks delegated to the specialist nurses enabled the
sharing
of a large workload, which may have otherwise significantly
prolonged
patient waiting lists. We believe that employing
experienced community nurses
benefits both patients and other
members of the services. The CATS nurses
provide continuity
in assessment and have an important pastoral and practical
role
in directing patients and carers towards appropriate services.
Using
these common and comprehensive response measures makes
decisions about
continuing treatment easier.
The service conforms to current NICE guidance, which recommends specialist
diagnosis and initiation of treatment, assessments of cognition, activities of
daily living, and behaviour, and assessment of response 2-4 months after
initiation of treatment. The service treats large numbers of patients and our
outcomes are comparable to, or better than, those found in both published
randomised controlled trials of antidementia drugs
(Rogers et al, 1998;
Reisberg et al, 2003)
and in reports of open studies of the use of donepezil in a UK memory clinic
(Mathews et al, 2000). In particular, we believe the demonstration of
benefits for cognition, function and behaviour is important. Our drop-out rate
is comparable to those in controlled trials
(Rogers et al, 1998;
Wilcock et al,
2000).
This study has a number of limitations. Significant benefits may follow
from non-specific aspects of the service, such as instillation of hope and
initiation of nondrug services suggested by the teams nurses. It was
beyond the scope of this study to consider the economic implications of
introducing this service configuration and there was no comparison arm of
another such service. Importantly, patients referred to the service were
heterogenous in terms of both diagnosis and severity of illness and a variety
of drug treatments were initiated. We believe that the offer of treatment to
some patients with diagnoses other than Alzheimers disease, and the use
of a range of available drugs, is probably typical of practice in the UK,
which may make our outcomes more generalisable.
The clinical implications of this study are that a dedicated home-based
service for the drug treatment of dementia can achieve high levels of clinical
activity, is adherent to NICE recommendations on assessment protocols and
achieves comprehensive outcomes at least as good as those reported in
controlled trials. The recent report on the AD2000 trial
(AD2000 Collaborative Group,
2004) and recent uncertainty in the UK over future availability of
antidementia drugs have drawn attention to the possibility that clinical
benefits from the use of cholinesterase inhibitors may be too small to justify
their cost. Although this is an open report of service outcomes, with
resultant biases, we believe that the outcomes reported show a real clinical
benefit for patients/carers. We believe that models of service delivery may
have substantial impacts on patient outcomes and that this model may be
attractive to services deciding how best to organise treatment for this
vulnerable group.

Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the efforts of the CATS team in this work: Joe
Marley,
Amanda Hill, Nicola McEwan and Melanie Ward.

References
- AD2000 COLLABORATIVE GROUP (2004) Long-term donepezil
treatment in 565 patients with Alzheimers disease (AD2000): randomised
double-blind trial. Lancet,
363, 2105
-2115.[CrossRef][Medline]
- ANDERSON, D. & AQUILINA, C. (2002) Domiciliary
clinics: I. effects on non-attendance. International Journal of
Geriatric Psychiatry, 17, 941
-944.[CrossRef][Medline]
- BUCKS, R., ASHWORTH, D., WILCOCK, G., et al
(1996) Assessment of activities of daily livingin dementia:
development of the Bristol Activities of Daily Living scale. Age
and Ageing, 25, 113
-120.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2001) National
Service Framework for Older People. London: Department of
Health.
- ERKINJUTTI, T., KURZ, A., GAUTHIER, S., et al
(2002) Efficacy of galantamine in probable vascular dementia and
Alzheimers disease combined with cerebrovascular disease: a randomised
trial. Lancet, 359, 1283
-1290.[CrossRef][Medline]
- FARLOW, M., ANAND, R., MESSINA, J., et al
(2000) A 52-week study of the efficacy of rivastigmine in
patients with mild to moderate Alzheimers disease. European
Neurology, 44, 236
-241.[CrossRef][Medline]
- FOLSTEIN, M., FOLSTEIN, S. & MCHUGH, P.
(1975) Mini-mental state: a practical method for
grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal
of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189
-198.[CrossRef][Medline]
- MATHURANATH, P., NESTOR, P., BERRIOS, G., et al
(2000) A brief cognitive test battery to differentiate
Alzheimers disease and frontotemporal dementia.
Neurology, 55, 1613
-1620.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- MATTHEWS, H., KORBEY, J., WILKINSON, D., et al
(2000) Donepezil in Alzheimers disease: eighteen month
results from Southampton memory clinic. International Journal of
Geriatric Psychiatry, 15, 713
-720.[CrossRef][Medline]
- MCKEITH, I., DEL SER, T., SPANO, P., et al
(2000) Efficacy of rivastigmine in dementia with Lewy bodies: a
randomised double-blind, placebo controlled international study.
Lancet, 356, 2031
-2036.[CrossRef][Medline]
- NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL EXCELLENCE (2001)
Guidance on the Use of Donepezil, Rivastigmine and Galantamine for
the Treatment of Alzheimers Disease. London:
NICE.
- REISBERG, B., BORENSTEIN, J., SALOB, S., et al
(1987) Behavioral symptoms in Alzheimers disease:
phenomenology and treatment. Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry, 48, 9
-15.
- REISBERG, B., DOODY, R., STOFFLER, A., et al
(2003) Memantine in moderate-to-severe Alzheimers disease.
New England Journal of Medicine,
348, 1333
-1341.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- ROGERS, S., DOODY, R., MOHS, R., et al (1998)
Donepezil improves cognition and global function in Alzheimer disease.
Archives of Internal Medicine,
158, 1021
-1031.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- WILCOCK, G., LILIENFELD, S., GAENS, E. & THE
GALANTAMINE-INTERNATIONAL-1STUDY GROUP (2000) Efficacy and safety
of galantamine in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimers disease:
multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ,
321, 1445
-1449.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. J Pelosi, S. V McNulty, and G. A Jackson
Role of cholinesterase inhibitors in dementia care needs rethinking.
BMJ,
September 2, 2006;
333(7566):
491 - 493.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|